- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Please be civil, and report any comments that break the rules of this community.
deleted by creator
I simply cannot grasp how a judicial system that’s entirely based on standing, suddenly decides that 6 random states that have 0 stake in this whole FEDERAL student loan thing have standing to sue over this forgiveness plan
Activist judge gets thrown around a lot, but if the shoe fits…
The only reason activist judge gets thrown around a lot is because the fascists have been screaming it for several decades while they stack the courts with activist judges. There screams have also caused the other side to fill courts with moderates so they’re not seen as stacking the courts.
You must acquit?
It’s corruption. This isn’t a fluke, it’s that the “justice” system revolves around what’s best for the already powerful elites. It happened because the powerful wanted it to happen, the court just exists to provide the theater to control and placate the masses.
What is also interesting to me is the Supreme Court has rejected pretty much all forms of standing for establishment clause violations.
You could be a religious Muslim rightfully upset that your local government is making public statements about Jesus being lord and you would have no standing since they wiped out offended observer standing.
I am really getting tired of many of these cases where they are based on theoretical harm. It’s like my mother-in-law arguing about 5 things that haven’t happened yet. Possible. Probable. Reality.
Meanwhile these were the same people who refused to mask up or vaccinate.
I think they threw most of them out for standing, but of course they just needed one. The most bs was the other case they decided where a person pre sued the state since she couldn’t even start a wedding service without the ability to discriminate due to their religious beliefs.
As others have noted with this court, standing is used when convenient.
I’m against student loan forgiveness, but I agree. All evidence seems to say that the plaintiffs had no standing. The case should have been thrown out.
Although I’m happy with the result, the means are not worth the ends. This is a corrupt faction of judges ignoring and applying law where it suits their broader agenda.
Fine. I’ll bite.
Why are you against student loan forgiveness?
5 bucks says it is either a half remembered article from an economist who works for the student loan people wailing about theoretical inflation or they knew someone with a degree that doesn’t pay well and want to punish them for trying.
It is always one or the other.
It doesn’t have to even be that complicated… I think they’re just assholes
A lot of it is the “fuck you, got mine” mentality too… which goes along with the “they’re just assholes”. Graduated with no debt because they have well off parents but down play the role that possibly could have had. Obviously people who need a loan to get through college nowadays are just lazy right?
Or “you could have just gone to a cheaper college, this one’s $10,000/year tuition” ignoring that just because you’re in college doesn’t mean you don’t also need to pay rent and buy other necessities… $10,000 is a lot of money for a young adult. That’s half their yearly post-tax income if they could work full time hours at $15/hour.
Don’t forget that’s 10,000 x 4 just for undergrad
My state college tuition 12 years ago was about 10k. Now it’s closer to 30k with no aid.
Let me preface this by saying I’m open to being wrong and that I don’t expect others to share these views. I still owe on my student loans and am not excited to continue paying them. Also, I’m listing several reasons here, so even if someone pokes holes in one or two, I’d encourage to see if there are still one or two solid reasons to be opposed to the specific method of student loan payoffs that was ruled unconstitutional.
-
From the beginning, the Biden administration knew this wasn’t a constitutional way of paying off loans. Their hope was that no one would have standing to bring a suit. In general, I’m not in favor of doing unconstitutional things in the hope we can get away with it. That’s a door I don’t want the Republicans to have access to either.
-
This program was initially proposed as COVID relief but does nothing to help those most impacted by COVID. It DOES however, help a huge class of potential voters. From the start this hasn’t been about helping people, it’s been about gaining votes.
-
Paying off existing student loans is an expensive measure that does nothing to address what got us here in the first place. We are paying too much for degrees that don’t provide the benefits and opportunities they once did, and that’s not going to change if we cancel existing debt. All it does is out us right back here in 5-10 years.
-
There’s a right way to go about this stuff. Congress should be the ones doing this, not the president. Unfortunately we have a congress that would much rather assign their work out to other people to take care of and that’s part of what has gotten us in the mess we’re in in the first place. I prefer a weak Office of the President, as we don’t always have who we want in that office. Sometimes this means things move slower than we’d like, but I’d rather that than letting whoever is president at the time take huge sweeping actions unchecked by Congress and the Judicial Branch.
Now, just to piss off anyone who wasn’t already upset with me, I think Trump is a crook and I hope he goes to jail for a long time.
Anyway, I’m not trying to start a fight, just give some reasons why I personally am happy with this SC decision.
I’m also against loan forgiveness and agree with all your points. Especially number 3. I want to add emphasis that I think forgiveness in this way will actually make the problem worse.
Yes, it would be a huge help to those who had debts forgiven. However if forgiven once, more people will be likely to go to price-gouging colleges, sign up for the huge student loans, and think there is some chance it will be forgiven later. Colleges will continue to raise tuition because people keep paying it.
We need to address the tuition cost problem. Colleges are out of control. Until we fix that, anything else will encourage them to keep going. Another way of looking at $500bn of loans forgiven… That’s $500bn in the colleges pockets that they get to keep after tripling their tuition.
I think college is a great thing and important to be accessible. We need to make it cheap enough that students can afford it and not come out of it with $80k+ in loans (I as did).
-
Not true. The executive branch has the power to not collect a tax or debt. Don’t like it? Then vote for a law change. Good luck with that since this has been the case since before the US even started. In fact what is now the UK waived the land tax on the colonies. It says a lot that to even get standing they had to legally force a corporation to claim damages.
-
Even if true who cares? Governments serve the population ideally. Would you rather they didn’t give people what they want so things are “fair”? Plus I seriously doubt you were protesting when the banks were bailed out, or the airlines, or the farms, or the banks, or the “small” business owners, or the insurance companies, or the car makers.
-
When a patient is bleading out you don’t give them a lecture on the importance of safety. You stop the bleeding. ER doctors are not useless because they don’t address root causes.
-
Again. Congress authorizes the collection of taxes and debt they do not collect. Giving permission is not the same as an order to perform.
You know I used to be a test engineer which means I was lied to about 30% of my day by PMs who wanted to push things out. A trick I figured out pretty early. When someone is telling me the truth they only need one reason. When they know that they are wrong they give me multiple weak arguments.
None of what you said is accurate or good arguments.
- You’re wrong in this instance, but a lot of people who have votes to gain have been saying this, so I understand why you think that.
The people saying that the President is allowed to wipe out student loans broadly are based on a misreading of the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1082(a)(6) . https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title31/subtitle2/chapter13&edition=prelim
The mentioned part of that act provides the provides the president (via the Secretary of Education) with the authority to:
“…modify, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”
But that quote is taken out of the broader context of the act. The preamble to that section limits the authority to operating within the scope of the statute.
It means that Congress can authorize a loan forgiveness program, (see Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan Forgiveness or the Total and Permanent Disability Discharge), which then means the U.S. Secretary of Education can forgive student loans as authorized under the terms of those programs.
Without authorization by Congress of a specific loan forgiveness program, the President does not have the authority to forgive student loan debt. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that all the way back in 2001 in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. when they put limits on what exactly Congress can delegate to the executive branch.
Also, the part of the Act referred to in the preamble is Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which applies only to loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.
There is similar language in Part E for the Federal Perkins Loan program. There is no similar language for Part D for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program.
-
I was protesting when the banks were bailed out. I was also protesting the business “loans” being forgiven. Attacking someone’s argument by building a strawman of who you want the others reading this to believe they are is a logical fallacy.
-
My point is exactly this. We’re treating a ruptured appendix with Advil.
-
See point 1.
-
Still wrong. All enforcement of a tax is on the executive. Congress can not force the executive branch to enforce a tax.
-
Doubt.
-
I had my appendix out. OTC painkillers were an active part of the process. Sorry your analogy disproves your point.
-
I won’t. Address it.
First off, this isn’t a tax going uncollected. The president can’t say 'This thing I want to do is going to now be considered a tax so I can now not collect it." At this point, it’s clear you’re not engaging in good faith, as you’re falling straight back to using character attacks rather than arguments, so have a nice day.
-
-
-
Doesn’t address the root problem, in fact it makes the root problem worse. It’s just a one time payout to a lucky group of millenials who happen to qualify at the moment.
Also, it primarily benefits wealthier people who got college degrees. That money would do a lot more good going to poorer people.
We’re waiting for your reply
I already replied
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/118064/US-Supreme-Court-blocks-student-loan-forgiveness-plan#entry-comment-479902
I think kbin and lemmy are still a little slow federating with each other. Your post here just hit my notifications even though it says you posted 15 hours ago.
Missouri proved they have standing via direct injury:
“At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s program. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government corporation created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees. MOHELA is, by law and function, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368.”
Except that MOHELA didn’t sue and didn’t want to sue in the first place. No business has a constitutional right to make a profit. If all debtors transferred their loans to a different company tomorrow, MOHELA would go bankrupt and they’d have just as much standing then, I.e. none at all. Furthermore, as I said, MOHELA didn’t sue, the state of Missouri did. MOHELA doesn’t pay a single cent to the state of Missouri, so exactly how is Missouri being injured here? The fact that MOHELA would make less money changes nothing to the “public function” Missouri is supposed to provide here. It can still continue to offer student loans. So I ask again, where is the injury? None of this gives Missouri the state any standing
Ah yes, red states, famous defenders of public institutions. Good grief. Thanks for clarifying!
Missouri proved no such thing.
Meanwhile, last October, MOHELA admitted in a letter to Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) that its executives “were not involved with the decision of the Missouri Attorney General’s Office to file for the preliminary injunction in federal court.” The Missouri attorney general had to obtain documents from MOHELA through state sunshine law requests in order to use them in the lawsuit. As I wrote last month, if this is successful, “the Supreme Court would be allowing the plaintiffs to win their case thanks to an unwilling conspirator.”
The internal documents from MOHELA reinforce this. They were obtained through those same state sunshine laws by the Student Borrower Protection Center.
https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancellation-supreme-court-mohela/
Like 180 million women in America and they all have less rights than my dead body will and they have no standing meanwhile a corporation that didn’t want to go to court was forced to by parts of the government and they have standing for theoretical harm.
“The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have standing to challenge a government action. And that requires a personal stake—an injury in fact. We do not al-low plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy.
Neither do we allow plaintiffs to rely on injuries suffered by others. Those rules may sound technical, but they enforce “fundamental limits on federal judicial power.” Allen v.
Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984). They keep courts acting like courts. Or stated the other way around, they prevent courts from acting like this Court does today. The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ide-ological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giv-ing those States a forum—in adjudicating their complaint— the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies.”They claimed they had standing. All the liberal justices disagree. This was a partisan lawsuit from the beginning and conservative activist judges on the SCOTUS are legislating from the bench with this ruling and ignoring decades of standing precedent.
Sidebar: does that look like it’s pronounced “moolah” or is it just me?
This quote from Pence is so unbelievably infuriating.
Joe Biden’s massive trillion-dollar student loan bailout subsidizes the education of elites on the backs of hardworking Americans
Good to know all of the millennial and gen z college graduates earning less than $125,000 per year and struggling in an awful economy are “elites” and not “hardworking Americans.”
Since I’m now apparently an elite, do I get a membership card in the mail?
Just another way the GOP is gaslighting the American public. American public distrusts the “elite” which the GOP represent or are part of themselves so they attempt to change what “elite” actually is. All of the lower and middle class people fight each other over a few thousand dollars while millionaires and billionaires siphon millions to billions from them through government handouts or record profits/“inflation”.
Not to mention that this is coming from the guy who said that racism is over because his three white kids graduated college
Vote vote vote.
Yeah, it’s called a diploma
Hardworking Americans are rich people. It’s a code. Poor people aren’t hard working because they are poor. If they were, they would be rich. All of the mental gymnastics is just that, and it is ridiculous.
Although the language is very imprecise, a university graduate will make $720,000 more over a 20 year period than a non-university graduate, spend four years out of the labour force not paying taxes and then will also have a higher life expectancy drawing from the public pension longer.
Tell me why it’s reasonable for people who didn’t go to university to help foot the bill for people who did?
This is the exact type of resentment members of the GOP are trying to sow among marginally different income brackets to promote infighting rather than pointing the finger at the actual “elite” class. You shouldn’t have to be saddled with massive amounts of debt to simply get an education. Adjusted for inflation, college tuition has increased nearly 750% since 1963. Source.
Why not tax the rich to pay for programs to support the lower and middle classes? Or subsidize education?
a university graduate will make $720,000 more over a 20 year period than a non-university graduate
That $720,000 difference over 20 years is less than a one-year salary for thousands of CEOs. Based on this list, there are 2,721 CEOs who earned more than $720,000 in 2021 (you have to scroll all the way down to page 137 to find a CEO earning less than $720,000).
It’s a drop in the bucket.
spend four years out of the labour force not paying taxes and then will also have a higher life expectancy drawing from the public pension longer.
If university grads earn more, wouldn’t their higher tax contributions quickly make up for the four non-tax-paying years compared to someone earning less without a degree? Not to mention it isn’t uncommon for students to also work while in college.
Regarding life expectancy, this is the same blame-game criticism. What impact would affordable healthcare have on life expectancy? Or a higher minimum wage?
Tell me why it’s reasonable for people who didn’t go to university to help foot the bill for people who did?
You could make the same argument for any type of program that distributes tax dollars to others. “Why should my hard-earned money go to someone sitting at home on welfare?”
The federal government clearly has no problem throwing obscene amounts of money at corporations, whether they need it or not, so why not divert some of that aid to the people?
When I took out my student loans, I knew what I was signing up for, and I never expected — or wanted – the government to step in and waive them. After seeing the massive amounts of money the government handed out in the form of PPP funds, including potentially $200 billion fraudulently (source), my view changed. If billionaires were getting PPP loans for millions of dollars, why shouldn’t a bunch of college graduates get $20,000 each?
Would you rather your tax money go to reducing student debt or $2 million to $5 million to Kanye West’s Yeezys? Or Tom Brady’s TB12 getting nearly $1 million?
It’s obviously not an actual either-or question, but ultimately, if the government is bailing out billionaires, banks, etc., then yeah, fuck it, help your middle class college graduates.
There aren’t enough CEOs to tax to make up the $400 billion it would cost for the student loan forgiveness.
$125k isnt even that much - but I suppose it depends on what degree you got and if you landed a job in your chosen field.
$125,000 seemed like a pretty fair cutoff for the loan forgiveness. If $124,999 is the maximum you could’ve earned to still be eligible, I feel like you’re generally living pretty comfortably, but still not “elite.” I mean, I make half that with a bachelor’s degree in journalism, so I was thrilled my remaining $20k in loans could’ve been waived.
Wouldn’t it just be so cool to live in a society where people cared about their neighbors?
it’s called communism. doesnt work.
Thats not what communism is and even if it was, you literally just tried to say caring about other people is bad regardless of what its called. This is part of the problem.
He said the quiet part out loud.
Republicans don’t care about anyone except themselves, and they think EVERYONE is actually that self centered. They literally think progressives are just faking it to gain power.
Let’s be real, they don’t even care about themselves. The real motivation is hurting others and punching down.
Yikes man, as a gov’t worker who gets paid less than my counter-parts in my industry: there are people who work for less in a capitalistic system for the betterment of others and are proud of it. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
E: not every person has blinders about “what’s in it for me.” And it’s not “communistic” to do so.
Removed by mod
Go back to your conservative instance, bigotry and hate is not welcome here
He simply said (admittedly completely wrong) something doesn’t work, how exactly is that bigotry and hate???
it isnt. a lot of folks dont know how language actually works
Usually conservatives are the ones to call people working together for the benefit of their fellow human and humanity communism
Removed by mod
I guess the only way to get your loans forgiven is to become a Supreme Court justice and have your assigned billionaire pay them off.
Or take out a PPP loan.
Now that student borrowers aren’t getting a “free ride”, I want PPP loan recipients to be required to pay back the full amount, plus say, 9% interest, retroactively. Why should my tax dollars pay for your free business loan?
Please, think of the billionaires /s
SCOTUS is why we can’t have nice things. Well, them and congress. And often the executive branch.
Basically we can’t have nice things.
99% of the time it’s conservatives.
I’d say 70% if I had to guess (not a real stat) as someone watching outside of the US.
Dems, although not being neonazi bigots still have a lot of scum inside. For example undermining recent Right to Repair. Getting bought out by tech companies, especially ISPs locally. And let’s not forget about them siding with railroad companies during strike.
He said “conservatives,” not “Republicans.” The trick is that most Democrats are conservatives, too.
It’s all relative. Y’all need to understand that. Compared to YOUR worldview, sure, moderate democrats are conservatives. Compared to centrists? No, they’re not.
Your political views are abnormal. Compared to most.
Every House Democrat and all Senate Democrats except Joe Manchin voted to give the striking railroad unions the sick days they were striking for.
Not sure what you mean by undermining right to repair, the Biden administration issued an executive order directing the FTC to punish companies that restrict the ability of independent shops to repair electronics.
Don’t forget state and local “leaders!” They’re the worst, too!
5 rich people sign a paper saying it’s cool if they die in a shitty submarine, they do, and we spent millions trying to find them.
But people actually need help and we could improve our society and economy in numerous ways, and we can’t do that.
I hate this place so God damn much.
5 rich people sign a paper saying it’s cool if they die in a shitty submarine, they do, and we spent millions trying to find them.
Not that I don’t agree with the sentiment, but this isn’t exclusive to the rich. There have been numerous cave diving incidents where people intentionally do stupid things like ignoring warning signs or breaking past locked gates only to end up in trouble and require a huge rescue operation to get them out and/or recover their bodies.
we Americans are granted a lot of freedoms - not that many countries offer similar freedoms. you could try to leave & go elsewhere but just because the grass looks greener, it doesnt mean that it is.
You may have been exposed to a bit too much propoganda my guy. The USA doesn’t even crack the top 20 in most major freedom indices.
Yeah the freedom to have your womb owned by the Catholic Church, the freedom to die of an easily treatment condition, the freedom to spend your life in debt.
“America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve”
-Tom Morello, Rage Against the Machine
Fuck off with that American exceptionalism bullshit. It’s as shit a country as any other country and it always has been.
So if I want my freedoms as a gay man I should just move? Rather than us just being better? It’s cool to praise the US and our freedoms, but the second we see the opposite we just tell people to leave, and yet we are supposed to be the good guys? Lol
I do not like the SCOTUS
that’s ok, our opinion doesnt matter.
Student loan forgiveness doesn’t go far enough. We need to overhaul the higher education system to rein in the cost of tuition. I mean, regardless of where you stand on student loan forgiveness, can we at least all agree that a bachelor’s degree costing anywhere near six figures is absurd?
Eehh fuck the conseritives on the supreme court.
deleted by creator
Disown them. I stopped all voluntary association outside of work with rightwingers.
My family and friends are a packaged deal. If you don’t like them then you don’t like me. My wife is an immigrant non-white non-christian. My sister-in-law is trans. My children are biracial. I have Muslim friends, Hindu friends, Jewish friends, Gay friends. I won’t associate with anyone who doesn’t support their right to exist and flourish. My parents (and the rest of my birth family) decided to not support the people I love so I decided to protect their grandchildren from them.
Blood means nothing.
So that when they say “you take out a loan, you pay it back,” you can point out to them that Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy (i.e. didn’t pay back his loans) five times in his life.
Right but that’s just being a good businessman! /s
They will just say it wasn’t personal bankruptcy.
You can’t argue with prostudent debt people. The answers and excuses keep changing and morphing. You might as well try to convince a theist out of God.
SCOTUS goes into summer recess in July, so they get through a big batch of cases at the end of June.
aw geez
edit:
America: We need to reduce cost of education!
Government: Hey let’s put our taxes towards cheaper education!
America: no.
America, can you explain?
American here. I can explain: Republicans.
Are Republicans the ones constantly renovating and building new facilities on campuses across the nation? I don’t think I’ve seen my university stop major construction for like 15 years.
You have a point but inefficiency in a system doesn’t mean the people who use it should be punished. I agree that the cost has gotten out of control and a large part of it is the dirty money river for construction. I have been involved in government contracts off and on for 15 years now and yes it is a shit show. I am proud to say that I have done my part to make it a bit better but that part is small.
Put it another way. I am fairly confident that the giant corp I work for made some infrastructure for your city or town if you live in the Anglosphere. I am also fairly confident that it was a far from perfect project in terms of who got paid for very little to no work or even negative work. Should you be punished for that? Should you have dirty sewage and trash in your streets and stop lights out because someone in the process skimmed some off the top?
Republicans are the ones who cut state funding for public universities leading to universities charging more money, the federal government offered loans to help offset that, and universities saw that and charged more money because the government continues to provide increasing amounts of loans. So yeah the universities are making out like bandits but Republicans definitely are not without blame. Cost of university would get reigned in if student loans were not a thing and the government was funding universities appropriately.
Dumb.
This didn’t do anything to curtail the cost of higher ed. Got nothing to do with republicans.
You are quoting two different “America”'s there, for one. SCOTUS isn’t even an elected body, so I’d hardly consider them “America” outside of their power to dictate our state of affairs.
SCOTUS is an appointment, based on experience - as compared to politicians who are elected based on what amounts to a popularity contest.
if I had to choose between someone who actually knows what they’re doing and the popular kid of the cycle, I know which I’d pick in a heartbeat.
If you’re going to dismiss the democratic process as a “popularity contest”, I don’t really see how you can expect anything else you say to be taken seriously.
what exactly do you think campaigning for an elected office is? it’s not based on merit or experience, it’s based on convincing other people that “I’m the best choice”. why else do you think politicians need to advertise how awesome they are?
if getting elected was based on actual merit then the populace would just elect the most qualified person… but that’s not how it works.
Again, not sure how you expect to be taken seriously here.
it’s ok, I’ve disregarded your opinion in its entirety (not that it was verbose or anything).
Another sound argument. You’re nailing it.
Basically, we’re forty years deep into supply side economics, sometimes referred to as Reaganomics, Trickle Down economics, or Horse and Sparrow economics (the latter two are generally considered derisive by proponents of this model). The idea is that if we set our policies so that outcomes are optimized for capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then they can generate more wealth faster, and increasing the sum total of available wealth will improve life for everyone; somebody please correct me if I have it wrong. Of course, how this has actually played out is that money’s just being funneled from everywhere into a handful of pockets to the detriment of everyone and everything else, and it’s never enough.
I’m not a Marxist, but I do appreciate his view as a historical determinist. What I think is interesting is that if you look at what Marx said would be done to fight the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, we’re doing basically everything on that list. I think Reagan was a true believer and honestly thought he was doing the best for his country that he could, even if he was incredibly wrong at practically every turn. It seems to me that supply side economics is really just a fancy way to run an extractive economy under the pretense of free markets.
Sorry but I’m having difficulty piecing what you said with why knocking 20 grand off student loans got shot down. How does it tie into a tendency for profits to fall? And targeting policies such that our business leaders generate wealth faster? If we’re to target e.g. tax deductions towards benefiting these wealth-bringers, shouldn’t we be offering tax credits to our education system to increase the total wealth of the nation? Math and Science should be absolutely FREE, and if economics courses were free I’d probably have an easier time having this conversation with you instead of trying to figure out what you’re even saying so that I could respond lol
Sorry, my dude. I just browse when I don’t have much going on, and those periods never last long. That sometimes results in kind of mangled thoughts.
What I mean to say is that ensuring your student debtors are on the hook is par for the course for how we’ve been realizing supply side economics. We’re maximizing outcomes for capital holders at the expense of consumers. Reducing student debt means that student debtors pay less to the loan servicing companies, which would not be maximizing the outcome for the capital holders.
Yes, you’re right, if we really wanted to generate wealth, we would optimize outcomes for consumers and workers, not for capital holders. You’ll find no disagreement with me there. Our economy is heavily dependent on the trading of consumer goods and services, so consumers not being able to afford goods and services is kind of dumb af. What I’m saying is that supply side economics (which I think is a steaming crock of crap) is a school of economic thought and policy that takes the view that if you maximize the outcomes for the capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then you’ll generate more wealth than you would have under some other strategy, and that excess wealth makes everyone better off. We’ve had forty years of optimizing outcomes for asset and capital holders now, and I’m still waiting to see the cup overflow (spoiler alert: it won’t).
Thanks for the elaboration. Sounds like the supply economics is less of the issue, and forcing people into debt is an extra step on top of helping wealthy people amass wealth. And that alone has the presumption of trust and good faith embedded within in. Convincing people to vote for that is a stranger saying “trust me bro i’ll pay you back” behavior. If laws and regulations are geared towards making rich people more rich then that’s all the law is meant for, nothing else. That’s the point of taxes (allegedly) so that we can point the nation’s wealth to what we want for the good of everyone. scam/10
America, can you explain?
The system is rigged by the greediest people in the country.
Why is it rigged? Are adults surprised they’re obliged to pay back money they borrowed?I
When the richest people in the country get loan forgiveness then yes, it can be surprising that the poor don’t get it.
To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.
I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.
To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.
I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.
To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.
I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.
Well, for one, forgiving student loans wouldn’t “reduce the cost of education.”
It would increase it. It’s just a windfall for universities and loan holders. It did nothing to curtail costs, or address the way student loans are handed out, and their nondischargeable status.
We’d be right back here in 10 years, regardless, because “forgiveness” doesn’t do anything to address the underlying problems of student loans, which will continue to be handed out, guaranteed by the gvt, and nondischargeable.
ok, this definitely does not resolve the cause of the issue but it does help. It’s like if I get a deep-ish cut I’m still going to switch out the bloody bandage on the way to getting antibiotics…
Yeah but fuck future generations, I got mine.
- Millenials taking a leaf from the boomers
America, can you explain?
This plan required an act of Congress, the president acted unilaterally and illegally in instituting the plan. The president isn’t a dictator, he must go through congress for quite a number of things.
Except this wasn’t enacted by the president but by the Secretary of Education under the Biden administration and the power was given to them by congress as part of the HEROES act.
If the supreme court wasn’t corrupt, they might have still struck this down but not under the cases that reached the supreme court. The fact that they found the original cases to have standing is actually insane and it’s likely to open a can of worms because they were basically:
“it’s not fair for only certain groups to benefit from government programs.”
Do you know how many things are going to be challenged now? And, for it not to create chaos, these new challenges will have to go to the supreme court again where they will have to do mental gymnastics to backpedal on why their decision applies here but not on whatever weird future cases. Jesus what a circus.
the power was given to them by congress as part of the HEROES act
It very specifically was not, and that is the issue.
" The HEROES Act … does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal."
The extent of the power of the HEROES act is debatable and thus why this has reached the supreme court. If you read it, the HEROES act was very vague the begin with, as these things often out in our messed up legal system. Like I said. They could argue against or for the HEROES ability to grant this power and they could easily argue it either way because that’s how our legal system works. But, that they did it with these cases is still insane because the sanding for these cases is wacko.
The standing wasnt wacko. You’re just not informed about the facts of the case. Missouri stood to lose about 44mil/yr or somewhere around there. That’s legitimate standing, regardless of your politics.
If that’s what the cases were actually about, I would support you. But the entity that has standing for that argument is MOHELA and they didn’t want to be a part of it. The cases that were presented had nothing to do with what Missouri had to lose financially.
The state of Missouri, one of the plaintiffs, is claiming that MOHELA will lose revenue as a result of debt cancellation, and therefore would be unable to repay money into a Missouri state fund that funds in-state schools. It was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years; MOHELA has also said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future. Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward, because it received additional servicing rights and its liability on certain accounts would be extinguished.
So, honestly, I call bullshit.
You can can call whatever you want. They still had standing, and proved it.
You’re just mad you didn’t get a free voucher.
Check my comment on one of the other threads, Missouri didn’t stand to lose anything. MOHELA doesn’t pay anything to the state, so even if there was some constitutional right to profit for companies, MOHELA would be the injured party, not the state of Missouri
If MOHELA would have been damaged (and they would have), then Missouri would necessarily be damaged as well. I don’t need to look at your other comment to know it’s wrong.
The decision is ridiculously ambiguous. The law is garbage, but the ruling is basically “well yeah, you can technically change loans, but not that much!” Congress should immediately repeal the law if it can just be used by the judicial to only implement what THEY want.
Strange though how the previous president doing the exact same thing but with ppp loans for businesses was all fine and dandy. Yes, yes, totally not a political judgement at all, nothing to see here
the exact same thing but with ppp loans for businesses was all fine and dandy
PPP was specifically authorized via an act of congress, the thing that the current president did not have.
Hopefully congress figures something out because having the entire working class occupied with paying exorbitant interest on rediculous loans is about to fuck our economy up big time.
Holy classism batman
You really think the working class is paying student loans? The working class never went to college.
Good to see that actual facts are as poorly received here as they were on Reddit.
deleted by creator
Its actually worse here. Lmfao. How’s that possible?
Sure, but we shouldn’t forget the context here. Why didn’t they go through congress? Because republicans will shoot it down immediately.
I think this is important to explicitly spell this out everytime when someone says that they don’t understand how PPP loans where no problem but student loans forgiveness is unable to pass: The problem are the conservative and republicans. They will rather forgive loans for companies than for their citizens!
wrong
The president acted as he did and the system of checks and balances played a role.
He is absolutely allowed to do that. It is not “illegal”
He isn’t going to be put in jail or anything no. He attempted to use a power he does not have. If the president wants this program to become a thing, an act of congress is required.
nope he has the power to do that. he was just told no by a separate and equally powerful authority who has the right to do that.
both parties are allowed to do what they did
the executive branch of the government isnt allowed to do what he tried to do. it is, by definition, an illegal action.
per the judicial branch, the legislative branch alone has that power. it’s been that way for a long time.
I mean, he’s literally not. That’s the whole point of the ruling.
What he did was deemed “illegal” by the court, which means he can’t do it…
The amount of mental gymnastics this court has used to strike down years of precedent is insane. Can anyone actually still look at their rulings anymore and genuinely say that they aren’t just making rulings based on their personal beliefs and bias? Tomorrow it will be illegal to own gold fish if they decided that was in the bible.
There’s no mental gymnastics in this one. You just don’t agree with them.
Oh honey, Kavanaugh literally made a ruling about a week ago that contradicts this one. But yeah. You’re actually right. They didn’t use mental gymnastics. They were too lazy for even that. They’re just saying no and contradicting themselves with almost zero justification as to why.
Yea, i mean, if you can’t read, i could certainly see how you could conflate the two cases. But they’re not the same. So…
Dumb point.
Fuck my life, the one peice of hope I had for a lifeline out of poverty
You join like six people I personally know, either is a close friend or family member.
For some reason this one feels so deeply personal, that I feel motivated to vote like hell. I’m so over being held hostage by maniac Boomers who are losing their minds. We are the bigger generation now. Let’s go kick their asses!
Wasn’t your degree supposed to be a lifeline out of poverty? How much do you make?
There are a lot of variables there. Adding interest-bearing debt to someone with no income is a great way to put them behind, they’ll still have rent and other necessities to buy in addition to the student loan payments. That debt can quickly snowball if other problems come up, especially if you’re unlucky (hospital bill in the US?). Generally when you start your career after graduating, you aren’t making the average salary for your position. You have no experience so you have to take what you can get. You also aren’t owed a job, college degree in hand or not. I say this with personal experience - a bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering from an accredited university, and research experience and internship experience from while I was in university.
what degree did you get? are there a lot of jobs in that field?
You planned poorly.
Core holding:
The HEROES Act … does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal.
The authority to “modify” statutes and regulations allows the Secretary to make modest adjustments and additions to existing provisions, not transform them.
This is the exact wishy washy stuff that would let one supreme court uphold and another strike down. You can modify it, but not that much! Stuck down! Lol our legal system is a joke.
Especially since the language of the HEROES act explicitly states that they can waive or modify. According to the majority forgiveness is clearly not equal to waiving, since you know, they’re different words and it’s impossible for different words to have the same meaning. If congress wanted to give the secretary the power to forgive, they should’ve written forgive instead of waive in the act /s
So is biden about to announce student loan waving?
They have discussed alternative routs towards executive student loan forgiveness. I think he’s probably too milquetoast to pursue it though, so don’t hold your breath. Though, he is significantly less milquetoast that I originally thought so maybe I am wrong.
Student loan waving? Like, a flag?
Let’s take the SCOTUS back to Pre-Marshall. Just what’s in the Constitution.
nah
So “modify” but not “transform”? Between the SCOTUS and me, it seems like one of us is having a stroke.
then can the dept of edu/biden admin modify the loans to $1? or something more “modest” like $1,000?
